Airmanship
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship boeing 737
I have a few questions about Airmanship
Fire that you cant extinguish
If the nearest suitable airport has weather below your minimums (say 100 feet lower, airport not cat 3). Would you go below you minimums or choose an airport that is a little bit further away with good weather?
Uncommanded rudder /Jammed flight controls/Runaway stabalizer
If you managed to resolve any of the above problems would you continue the flight or make a precautionary landing?
Many thanks
F B
Fire that you cant extinguish
If the nearest suitable airport has weather below your minimums (say 100 feet lower, airport not cat 3). Would you go below you minimums or choose an airport that is a little bit further away with good weather?
Uncommanded rudder /Jammed flight controls/Runaway stabalizer
If you managed to resolve any of the above problems would you continue the flight or make a precautionary landing?
Many thanks
F B
Last edited by fastidious bob; 20th Jan 2008 at 10:54.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with your questions Bob, is that they are rather general. As such, "specific situation" answers are quite difficult. You might well get 6 different answers from 6 different people and all of them might be right in a given set of circumstances. Obviously there are guidelines, checklists and common sense applications that will have a large bearing on the decision process, however it is often the case that a commander and (his) crew will have to draw information from numerous sources and adapt a number of solution guides to resolve any given situation.
?
For a start the airport would not by definition be suitable ? The cloudbase is in any event not relevant to certain types of precision approach (cat 3 or not). Obviously any fire that cannot be positively extinguished is a very serious event. In such circumstances a crew would be aiming to land the aircraft as soon as possible, since any delay might remove the ability to make that choice. However an airport with good weather that is "a little bit further away", (little bit ?) would likely result in an earlier landing if a visual approach negated the need for an instrument approach to an airport with poor weather conditions. It really is a case of "How long is a piece of string"? On the other hand a fire that occured to an aircraft already on an instrument approach would have to be weighed up against the additional time delay incurred in diverting and in such circumstances the crew might well elect to fly below the published minima in regard to the risk involved.
Again it all depends on the reason why the problem occured. Certainly if there was no obvious and rectifiable cause then a precautionary landing might well be carried out. However there are situations that might cause or result in some of these conditions that are identifiable or resolvable that the crew might judge as not warranting a diversion. For example freezing water can sometimes cause jammed flight controls, and a descent into warmer air can resolve the problem. A rudder or stabilizer movement (runaway) might be caused by an erroneous pilot input.
At the end of the day not everything is as black and white as it might seem to the casual observer. There is plenty of guidance that together with training and experience means that a problem can often be approached from different directions depending on the information that is available and the time criticality.
Airmanship is in part about the ability to utilize common sense, experience and resource within a team framework to bring about the safest possible outcome for any given task or operation. Often that combination will result in the utilization of routine procedures and checks with (when required) the use of emergency procedures and checks. However that does not exclude the use of reasoning and even inventiveness when required.
Seeing the broader picture and how a problem is dealt with within it, and ensuring that we know how to utilize the resources that are available to us in our roles as crewmembers is why we are (or should be) paid the big bucks.
Fire that you cant extinguish
If the nearest suitable airport has weather below your minimums (say 100 feet lower, airport not cat 3). Would you go below you minimums or choose an airport that is a little bit further away with good weather
If the nearest suitable airport has weather below your minimums (say 100 feet lower, airport not cat 3). Would you go below you minimums or choose an airport that is a little bit further away with good weather
For a start the airport would not by definition be suitable ? The cloudbase is in any event not relevant to certain types of precision approach (cat 3 or not). Obviously any fire that cannot be positively extinguished is a very serious event. In such circumstances a crew would be aiming to land the aircraft as soon as possible, since any delay might remove the ability to make that choice. However an airport with good weather that is "a little bit further away", (little bit ?) would likely result in an earlier landing if a visual approach negated the need for an instrument approach to an airport with poor weather conditions. It really is a case of "How long is a piece of string"? On the other hand a fire that occured to an aircraft already on an instrument approach would have to be weighed up against the additional time delay incurred in diverting and in such circumstances the crew might well elect to fly below the published minima in regard to the risk involved.
Uncommanded rudder /Jammed flight controls/Runaway stabalizer
If you managed to resolve any of the above problems would you continue the flight or make a precautionary landing
If you managed to resolve any of the above problems would you continue the flight or make a precautionary landing
At the end of the day not everything is as black and white as it might seem to the casual observer. There is plenty of guidance that together with training and experience means that a problem can often be approached from different directions depending on the information that is available and the time criticality.
Airmanship is in part about the ability to utilize common sense, experience and resource within a team framework to bring about the safest possible outcome for any given task or operation. Often that combination will result in the utilization of routine procedures and checks with (when required) the use of emergency procedures and checks. However that does not exclude the use of reasoning and even inventiveness when required.
Seeing the broader picture and how a problem is dealt with within it, and ensuring that we know how to utilize the resources that are available to us in our roles as crewmembers is why we are (or should be) paid the big bucks.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 cents
1. There are no minimums during a emergency, time is the MOST important element when a fire is burning. 2. Absolutely not, time to be on the ground.
Both scenarios can have many different factors and I didn't play the what if game, only on face value FWIW.
Both scenarios can have many different factors and I didn't play the what if game, only on face value FWIW.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of fire???
Are we talking an engine fire, or a cabin fire, or what???
"17 minutes and the aircraft will be rendered useless...."
Certainly, we've seen this with cabin fires, electrical fires in the cabin, etc., but not with unextinguishable engine fires.
The Air Canada DC-9 that landed in CVG proved this...If I remember correctly, from the time the lavatory fire was discovered until the time they landed, was 20 minutes....and, this turned out to be too long.
Can anyone cite an instance where the engine fire was unextinguishable, and the aircraft burned up inflight, causing it to crash, etc., etc? I can't recall, but perhaps someone can.
The basic premise of having a takeoff alternate (in the event that weather minima preclude a return for landing) takes into account these things....
1. If some pregnant woman in the back has her water break....go to takeoff alternate.
2. If an engine fails (on a twin-engine aircraft), go to takeoff alternate.
3. If an engine is on fire...extinguishable or unextinguishable...go to takeoff alternate.
4. If you have some other type of uncontrollable fire that will, in the opinion of the commander, threaten (with time the main consideration) the safety of the aircraft...for example, an unextinguishable galley fire, or an unextinguishable cabin electrical fire, or an unextinguishable lavatory fire, etec., etc., AND YOU KNOW IF YOU PROCEED TO YOUR TAKEOFF ALTERNATE, YOU WON'T MAKE IT IN TIME, do what you must do.
However, I, again, ask, when has there ever been an unextinguishable engine fire (except for maybe on something like a twin Cessna...I don't know) that caused the aircraft to burn up? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)
Some aircraft, today, are capable of doing single-engine auto-lands, and certainly this is a consideration. But, this is for an ILS. What if your departure airport has only a VOR approach (or, worse yet, only an NDB approach)?
So, you take off from an airport that has only a VOR approach...the weather is below landing minima for that approach...but the weather is above takeoff minima. You take off, but with a takeoff alternate.
I'd hate to attempt a single-engine approach and landing to an airport with only a VOR approach with weather below minima for that approach...unless I had no other alternative....that is, unless I knew we wouldn't make it to the takeoff alternate.
Yes, it's true, the commander can deviate from any and all rules as he feels necessary to safely get the aircraft on the ground in the event of an emergency.
PantLoad
"17 minutes and the aircraft will be rendered useless...."
Certainly, we've seen this with cabin fires, electrical fires in the cabin, etc., but not with unextinguishable engine fires.
The Air Canada DC-9 that landed in CVG proved this...If I remember correctly, from the time the lavatory fire was discovered until the time they landed, was 20 minutes....and, this turned out to be too long.
Can anyone cite an instance where the engine fire was unextinguishable, and the aircraft burned up inflight, causing it to crash, etc., etc? I can't recall, but perhaps someone can.
The basic premise of having a takeoff alternate (in the event that weather minima preclude a return for landing) takes into account these things....
1. If some pregnant woman in the back has her water break....go to takeoff alternate.
2. If an engine fails (on a twin-engine aircraft), go to takeoff alternate.
3. If an engine is on fire...extinguishable or unextinguishable...go to takeoff alternate.
4. If you have some other type of uncontrollable fire that will, in the opinion of the commander, threaten (with time the main consideration) the safety of the aircraft...for example, an unextinguishable galley fire, or an unextinguishable cabin electrical fire, or an unextinguishable lavatory fire, etec., etc., AND YOU KNOW IF YOU PROCEED TO YOUR TAKEOFF ALTERNATE, YOU WON'T MAKE IT IN TIME, do what you must do.
However, I, again, ask, when has there ever been an unextinguishable engine fire (except for maybe on something like a twin Cessna...I don't know) that caused the aircraft to burn up? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)
Some aircraft, today, are capable of doing single-engine auto-lands, and certainly this is a consideration. But, this is for an ILS. What if your departure airport has only a VOR approach (or, worse yet, only an NDB approach)?
So, you take off from an airport that has only a VOR approach...the weather is below landing minima for that approach...but the weather is above takeoff minima. You take off, but with a takeoff alternate.
I'd hate to attempt a single-engine approach and landing to an airport with only a VOR approach with weather below minima for that approach...unless I had no other alternative....that is, unless I knew we wouldn't make it to the takeoff alternate.
Yes, it's true, the commander can deviate from any and all rules as he feels necessary to safely get the aircraft on the ground in the event of an emergency.
PantLoad
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the Concorde crash not appear to the pilots to be an engine fire (they had an engine fire indication I believe) and result in loss of the aircraft. Not quite the
unextinguishable engine fire ... that caused the aircraft to burn up
asked for, but not far off in effect.
unextinguishable engine fire ... that caused the aircraft to burn up
asked for, but not far off in effect.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this statement in the front of my new QRH. I guess that answers the question about going below minimums.
NG
'If a smoke, fire or fumes condition becomes uncontrollable, the SMOKE, FIRE OR FUMES checklist directs the flight crew to consider an immediate landing.
“Immediate landing” implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, the
smoke, fire or fumes situation may be severe enough that the captain should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing or a ditching.'
“Immediate landing” implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, the
smoke, fire or fumes situation may be severe enough that the captain should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing or a ditching.'
Does anyone know why the classic does not have this statement in the front of the QRH. Also there is no Smoke,Fire or Fumes checklist??
Last edited by fastidious bob; 26th Jan 2008 at 10:02.
